Ahead of the NATO summit near the end of June, the defence ministers of NATO countries have agreed to ambitious new capability targets.
Sweden – NATO’s newest member – explained capability targets:
“NATO Capability Targets define which military capabilities member countries need, in order to implement NATO’s operational plans and contribute to the Alliance’s collective defence. New capability targets are adopted every four years. The targets are divided into short-term (0–6 years) and medium-term objectives (7–19 years). Targets for the coming years were adopted at the meeting of NATO Defence Ministers in Brussels on 5 June.
To meet the new capability targets, Allies need to increase their defence spending. At the meeting, Allies also discussed the proposal for new defence spending targets, as part of preparations ahead of the NATO Summit in The Hague on 24–25 June.”
The new capability targets lay the groundwork for a likely agreement by NATO allies to change the defence spending target from 2% of GDP to 5% of GDP over the next seven years.
That deal is likely to demand 3.5% of GDP on core defence investment, and 1.5% on defence and security-related investment.
This could help NATO countries utilize unique national features, such as Canada’s rich endowment of natural resources or nuclear weapon capabilities in nations like France, to count toward the overall defence spending figure. This would be important for both political and practical reasons. Politically, national leaders will need to find realistic ways to shift towards higher defence spending, and the 1.5% ‘defence-related’ category makes that easier rather than directly spending 5% of GDP on the military. Of note, the U.S., one of the countries most vehemently pushing for that spending level, spends just over 3%. And, as noted by the Associated Press, the U.S. is “the only ally whose spending has dropped since 2014.”
Implications for Canada
Practically, NATO works best when countries focus on what they are best at and pool their capabilities so the whole is stronger than the parts. If Canada can provide massive quantities of rare earths, France and the UK build up their nuclear capability and buttress the U.S. nuclear shield (which may not be as reliable as many hoped), Germany focuses on building backup military production capacity in auto factories, etc, NATO as a whole will be much more powerful.
Now, attention shifts to the upcoming NATO summit, where agreement to the new targets is likely given that there is significant pressure from within the alliance, and from outside, as Russia and China’s significant military spending, and the desire of many in the U.S. to pull back from the world, is becoming impossible for even the most naive leaders to wish away.
Canada and Europe possess well-educated populations, significant wealth, and a high level of technology. Putting a real effort into raising military spending can ensure that – even without direct U.S. involvement – free nations have the military strength to confront hostile authoritarian states. After all, Canada’s overall GDP is similar to that of Russia, meaning that we could play a key role in holding authoritarian states like Russia and China at bay if we undertook a determined effort to leverage our wealth and technology to build a powerful military.
The world has become too dangerous for Canada to continue underfunding our armed forces.
Spencer Fernando
Image – YouTube
If this piece left you clearer than it found you, that's the point. I write for readers who want to think past the week, to see the longer pattern beneath the daily story, and to come away steadier rather than more agitated.
That longer view gets built somewhere. On Patreon, essay by essay, I'm constructing The Long Work, a body of analysis meant to outlast the news cycle that prompted it. The readers there make it possible. No subsidies, no strings. The work answers to them.
$8/month to read it as it's built, and to have a hand in building it.